MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1499257180.2707.34.camel@decadent.org.uk>
References: <20170619142358.GA32654@1wt.eu> <1498009101.2655.6.camel@decadent.org.uk>
 <20170621092419.GA22051@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1498042057.2655.8.camel@decadent.org.uk>
 <1499126133.2707.20.camel@decadent.org.uk> <CA+55aFzMX72+Kb=zNgjCf6UfPt+C+e7WDp_rpbSLuOVx1k7iqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170704084122.GC14722@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170704093538.GF14722@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170704094728.GB22013@1wt.eu> <20170704104211.GG14722@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170704113611.GA4732@decadent.org.uk> <1499209315.2707.29.camel@decadent.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFzjibuaV=GBZQN8KOaCpf1P3B1abJCYGaxEM9RVpf9fXg@mail.gmail.com> <1499257180.2707.34.camel@decadent.org.uk>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:17:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzV+CEtFhj-+t31249rcEud3DQqqY4fwJYsO3oT0RJ_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: larger stack guard gap, between vmas
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
        Helge Diller <deller@gmx.de>, James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
        "security@kernel.org" <security@kernel.org>,
        Qualys Security Advisory <qsa@qualys.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ximin Luo <infinity0@debian.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1442
Lines: 34

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 16:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> Can you find out where that is allocated? Perhaps a breakpoint on
>> mmap, with a condition to catch that particular one?
>
> Found it, and it's now clear why only i386 is affected:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/hotspot/file/tip/src/os/linux/vm/os_linux.cpp#l4852
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/hotspot/file/tip/src/os_cpu/linux_x86/vm/os_linux_x86.cpp#l881

Thanks, good work.

Well, good work on *your* part. I will try very hard to refrain from
commenting too much on the f*cking stinking pile of sh*t that was
exec-shield.

But yes, I don't think we can sanely recognize this. The code clearly
very intentionally does that mapping under the stack, and it's very
intentionally not PROT_NONE, since it's meant to be both writable and
executable.

As I said earlier (and I see Michal Hocko suggested the same - sudden
email flurry going on here), I think we need to basically allow people
to set the stack gap per-process to something low.

The good news is that this is probably specialized enough that we can
just keep the defaults as "will break this one case, but we give
people the tools to work around it".

I hate doing that, but distros that still support 32-bit (which is
apparently a shrinking number) can maybe hack the libreoffice launch
scripts up?

               Linus